Forum:E-Mailed Rulings from Konami (2)
| Forums: | Index → Yu-Gi-Oh! Ruling Queries → E-Mailed Rulings from Konami (2) Please sign your comments with ~~~~. See Help:Signatures and Help:Talk pages for further information. |
 | This forum thread has been unedited for 4640 days and is considered archived. Please don't add to the discussion, unless absolutely necessary. |
In this thread we were discussing how to handle the E-mail Rulings that we receive from Konami and most importantly those who make a previous Official Ruling outdated.
The fear of adding them to the Rulings' Main Pages as separate Official Rulings was that they may be fake since they are not posted by Konami but by the people that received them and on unofficial sites. So we decided to add the "Out of Date" template and mention the change in the talk Page.
But then UDE's Rulings were still considered as "official". Now they are not so it isn't correct to have the "Out of Date" template for something unofficial that got reversed.
Right now we add a new category ("Out of Date") under the "Previously Official Rulings" mentioning there the outdated Ruling and right next to it a note mentioning the new Ruling we received from the email. Example!
Should we leave them like that or should we mention them a different way? Thoughts?
Something else we can do is to mention them as separate Rulings but under a template saying that those Rulings aren't confirmed by Konami so they may be fake, or something!
ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 11:33, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
- For emailed rulings; I agreed with Deus Ex Machina that they are worth mentioning. However, unlike him, I think it's best to give them their own box (like the Previously Official Rulings template)
- And at that, maybe there should be an option in the box, one for definite trustworthy sources and one for unconfirmed sources.
- (on another note; has there ever been incorrect answers given by the emails?)
- -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 11:44, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
